Let us begin with what I believe to be a common sense observation, which is that when everything is rape then nothing is.
We live in a time when the truth of much of this is playing out in real time. Let us begin with one side of the equation, which would be the current climate on college campuses created by various certified buttercups, which wants to define rape culture as a giant edifice built out of, among other things, microaggressions, mansplaining, and manspreading. We are rapidly getting to the point where rape culture is any culture with men in it. That drives us in the direction of “everything is rape.”
But what about the “nothing is” part? This is the world where young Muslim men can grope women ad libitum, and the women are the ones blamed, where glorified rape fantasies like 50 Shades sell a kabillion copies to ostensibly liberated women, and where any attractive woman, regardless how modest, every day has to navigate a world catechized by porn.
Now Christians should always want to live counter-culturally, but especially in times like ours. Those who share this desire often come together as Christians, in Christian families, in Christian churches, which then develop into what might be called Christian subcultures. In these subcultures, customs develop. As with all customs, some people understand the reason for the custom while other just go along with the custom thoughtlessly. This same reality is true in subcultures where a recovery of courtship has taken root.
It is the conviction of many of us here in conservative Christian circles that the principal threat to women is men. Taken as a general rule, women need to be protected from men. But because of the superior strength and higher levels of aggressiveness in men — and I know I run the risk of heavy fines and internment in sensitivity camp for saying it — what we must have in order to protect women from men is . . . men. Men are the principal danger, and so men must be the principal defense against that danger. You can complain about this if you like, and you may get your representative to introduce legislation about it, but it remains the fact that something that is 200 pounds weighs more than something that is 130 pounds.
In the older order, the principal responsibility for doing this fell on the men of a particular woman’s acquaintance — her father, her brothers, her husband, her sons. This was not a matter of law imposed from above, but rather a matter of internalized custom. It took us a long time to get there, but it is not taking us nearly that same amount of time to leave. It was not the kind of rule that civilizations make, but it was rather the kind of civilization that kind of rule made.
So then, what do we do? Christian men have an obligation to protect the women in their lives. This is one of the permanent things. It one of the foundation stones in the natural order of things. God created Adam to protect and provide. Those are the two central duties of men. It is what men are for.
So what follows is a short summary of what I have taught in this realm for many years.
The first duty that a man has is a variation on the Hippocratic Oath, where it says, first, do no harm. If a man’s task is to protect “the womenfolk” — and yes, I know I sound like a troglodyte and, also like a troglodyte, do not care — then his first order of business is to make sure he is not the one she principally needs protection from. Included in that is the common error of protecting others stupidly, which usually winds up being no protection at all.
Second, when you have a community of like-minded people, you have to learn how to function within the customs that have developed. You are not dealing with the Sinaitic code, but rather with manners and mores. Let us say, for just one example, that a young NSA freshman has been flirting his head off with a particular girl for a couple weeks. His roommate takes him aside and says, “Have you talked to her dad?” Now out of 100 instances of this kind of “intervention” in our circles, I am quite prepared to grant that a certain number of these incidents are legalistic, fussy, unnecessary, officious, or just plain jealous. Great, and let’s take that as an encouragement to not be that guy. But now let’s take a trip across town to the other college, the land where nobody would ever dream of asking such a stooopid question. We are talking about the land of abortion, STDs, serial crack-ups, and lots of therapy for mangled daughters. We are talking about the land that fathers forgot — and it is truly a miserable land.
Now I do understand why someone might argue that I am an over-protective throwback. I disagree, but at least it is a coherent criticism. But when I insist on the duty of Christian men to be a wall of protection for the women in their lives, and I lament the fact that many women have abandoned any such protection, how is it possible for Rachel Held Evans to think that I say that unsubmissive women deserve to be raped? Mark her use of that word deserve.
Say a woman — for some egalitarian and very foolish reason, declines to have her dinner date walk her back to her car in some urban center after dark. Let us say she is raped and murdered. According to what RHE says, my response is going to be some variant of “served her right.” Now you would have to be a fool not to see the connection between her refusal of an escort and what happened to her, but you would also have to be pretty vile to say that walking to your car deserves the penalty of rape and murder. You would also have to be pretty high up among Obama’s advisers to falsely accuse someone of being that vile.
One consequence of rejecting the protection of good men is that you are opening yourself up to the predations of bad men. I fully acknowledge that this is not what such women think they are doing. They think they are rejecting the patriarchy, or some other icky thing, but when they have walked away from the protections of fathers and brothers, what it amounts to is a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of rape.
Does this mean they deserve to be wronged? Of course not. Does John Piper deserve to be mugged because he won’t carry a gun? Do I deserve to have my truck stolen because I left it unlocked? Did the oysters in The Walrus and the Carpenter deserve to be eaten because they were so stupid?
Third, when you are a member of a subculture that follows the courtship pattern, there are two things you need to make sure you are doing. The first one is that you must have buy-in from everybody involved. If you don’t have that buy-in, it would be far better simply to work with whatever buy-in you already have. I have taught parents repeatedly that their job is not to get the kids to conform to the standard, but rather to get them to love the standard. If they don’t love the standard, then lower the standard and work from there.
The second one is this: you often have to translate the principle you are following and you have to translate it into the language/s and customs of the surrounding culture. I have also taught for years that we are to honor the principle and use the methods — while holding them loosely. I have two daughters and one son. One time years ago, Nate said something like this to me — “my sisters are a home game. I’m an away game.” Sons leave, and daughters are given, and this requires us not to be too rigid in our methods.
One method would be something like a daughter remaining in her father’s house until marriage. As it happened, that is what occurred with my daughters, but we had no expectation that this was something we “had to” do. It wasn’t a rule or anything. And if I remember rightly, one of the girls was actually planning on getting an apartment the next year when marriage intervened. So let us say that one or both of our girls had moved out before marriage, and let us also say that a couple years passed before the right guy came around. When he came around, would they still “have to” do it the courtship way? Well, that would depend. Would they still have a dad whose opinion of men they respected, and who still loved them?
Or should I rather say, “Sorry, kid. You are paying your own utilities now.”
This National Review article has a nice little critique in it on RHE. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430692/iowas-evangelicals-beat-trump-voted-principles?target=topic&tid=1514
Nice article! Thanks for the link!
The greatest problem for courtship is the fact that the father is not in the picture. Let’s throw out a couple of scenaria and see how this might work. Suzy is the product of divorce. Due to the acrimony. Dad didn’t get to see her much and he lives in another state and he is not a Christian. She talks to him once in a while and Suzy is a new Christian. Olivia has a Christian mom and step father. Mom was converted after breaking up with Dad. Dad is not saved, but he is in the picture. Paid child… Read more »
Courtship, as widely practiced in conservative Christian communities, most definitely has a father in the picture. So, I don’t understand your first sentence, assuming no father is involved. The scenario you describe is certainly a messy one and I am sure versions of that exist around the country. However, a good model of courtship should start with two believing families in a solid church that have a son and daughter that are interested in each other. From their the model can be applied outwardly to more difficult situations. What I think you are proposing is to start with a hard… Read more »
I think what he means by his first sentence is that in too many cases, the father is not in the picture.
That’s no reason to throw out the model, though — that’s a reason to say it doesn’t apply in every single case.
This: “What I think you are proposing is to start with a hard case and argue that the model doesn’t work? If so, that would be a poor way to setup up a model of anything. You are arguing from the fringes. Lets work from the center instead.”
My motivation on this is not to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. A big part of evangelism is that the people who you will lead to the Lord will come in with these kinds of baggage. They will bring in kids or they will be the kids themselves. If we don’t consider how we will address the courtship needs of these new believers or believers who are in bad situations, they will be isolated and that is not a good place for them to be and that is on us. This means, we should use this format… Read more »
If we focus on the principle, we should be able to find suitable methods for such messy situations. The principle calls for a protective overseer of the courtship. This could take place in the context of a trusted family within the woman’s church, perhaps the family of a deacon or elder could act in this capacity. You are right to bring up such “what-ifs” and encourage the church to provide courtship opportunities for those who desire to nurture pre-marital relationships in a safe environment.
If this is a question with serious intent, I think for Suzy and Amanda, a male spiritual authority she trusts (preferably a pastor) should probably step in for part of the role. For Olivia, a pastor and her unsaved father would share the role, in general.
I think if someone does not have a godly father, trying to shoehorn in some substitute in order to conduct a sort of ersatz courtship model is probably unwise. But a woman in that situation can seek godly counsel and the man involved needs to respect the fact that she does not have the protection and counsel of a father, and exercise especial caution because she is more vulnerable.
Sometimes you can’t unscramble the eggs in a fallen world, you have to work with what you have.
My church doesn’t practice courtship, but I’m in the same situation regarding an absentee father. I have found the influence of uncles and even neighbors invaluable. It is good for boyfriends to know that my daughter is not quite so unprotected as she appears.
Yes, those kinds of influences are good. I’m just leery of creating some kind of father “substitute.” If God has not provided a woman with a father who can fulfill this role, we can’t just make one up. :-)
I agree – I spoke too briefly – it’s a similar role, but not a substitute. More like the kind of pre-marital counselling most Christian couples I know receive, but pre-pre-marital.
I agree with you. My daughter is in fact inclined to go searching for father substitutes which creates its own set of problems. Sometimes it might be better to acknowledge the loss as irreparable than to try to fix it.
Actually we don’t have to make one up, she has a heavenly Father. It’s far more challenging when you don’t have an earthly father, but God Himself does some good courtship work. ;)
Yes, and I am glad you reminded me of that. I am too often inclined to believe that I carry the whole burden of her safety and happiness alone. My daughter lost her faith when her father left. I pray that she will come back, and I know that God is faithful.
Right, but you know what I meant. :-)
I agree. It is a legal question. Unless a man legally adopts the woman has his own daughter, he doesn’t have the investment in her or the legal basis to be able to annul her vows. The right to annul a daughter’s vow is the assumption that courtship theory is built around.
It’s not merely legal, but spiritual. God gives girls fathers, and He takes them away. Any other man stepping in (barring someone actually completely assuming the role of father through adoption or step-fatherhood, and thereby becoming the father, not merely stepping in when no father is present) can provide wisdom and counsel and support and all kinds of good things, but in the end, he’s not the man that was given to her as her father. He’s a man who does not have the mandate, the authority, or the responsibility that goes with really being a father. Nor, with very,… Read more »
I am not understanding you and Ken and the reference to Numbers. Under the courtship model, a father can annul his daughter’s wedding vow? How? And do the courts recognize the father’s authority if the daughter is of age? Does the daughter have to agree?
I didn’t say anything about Numbers, and I missed the force of Ken’s reference to it. I don’t think it applies directly to us, though there are principles there. All I mean is, my husband has certain legal and spiritual authority and responsibility for my daughters (and sons). Were I to lose him, and not remarry before they were fully independent or married, any man they might ask for counsel simply won’t *be* their father, (and given their ages, even were I to remarry their stepfather would never really be their father, though he’d have more authority and responsibility than… Read more »
Ian, I find it amazing that a pastor could ever have the time. My Catholic parish has two priests and something like 4500 members. I would fall over in surprise if anyone knew my name.
I grew up Baptist, in a church with 2000-3000 members. But we had upwards of 10 pastors, and many more elders and small group leaders who can form those kinds of relationships. :)
Good question, and it will be more relevant where christian communities are disappearing or don’t abound. The answer to those cases is -by God’s grace- overlapping biblical roles. Take for example Genesis 24, most young men today should take the 3 roles: Be “the Jacob” (the single man in need of a spouse, they’re already there), set a course (be “the Abraham”, committing to equal yoke, make an oath to follow God’s will whatever the outcome, etc.) and finally be “the Eliezer” (make the long and dangerous trip to Haran, out from their comfort zones, hobbies and immaturity … what… Read more »
It’s hard to imagine the twisted mindset of the woman who refuses an escort to her car after dark, so it’s hard to imagine the remedy, but perhaps women should play tackle football. Perhaps they would learn that it’s not a judgment on the competence of the quarterback to put some beefy guys in front of him for protection.
In reality, they don’t actually reject an escort to the car after dark. What they want is to have it both ways — to insist that they don’t need protection from men, until they do, and then by golly it had BETTER be there, because 1 in 5 women get raped on college campuses and somebody’s got to build the safe spaces.
Having it both ways is the essence of feminism.
Well, I’d say it’s more a petulant demand that reality fit their petulance – you know, classic postmodernism, pretty much the same as Marxism only replace “men” with “bourgeoisie” and “women” with “proletariat” and “rape” with “money.”
because 1 in 5 women get raped on college campuses
Number one reason to get, learn to use, and carry a gun (regardless of one’s opinion of the truth-value of the statistics.) ^_^
I think that a carrying a gun on a California campus might get you sent to prison.
Also, number one reason NOT to attend those colleges.
If it were true, it would be.
It is rebellion. It is (and not just by females) part and parcel of a “you are not the boss of me” belief system. It is a fist-raised demand for autonomy. It is “I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, with anyone I want, and never, ever shall any of the consequences be apportioned to my behavior”.
Professing themselves wise.
But it would be a judgement on his judgement if he did not.
Actually, that’s not a bad idea. My girls actually had to play coed basketball just to get a feel for the strength difference between men and women. Our culture does girls a real disservice, because in movies, music, etc, we’re all warrior princesses who can take down half a dozen men. It sounds crazy to suggest that girls would not understand their own limitations, but I’ve seen some evidence of that.
Under the influence of Christianity, the level of threat the typical western woman experiences from the men in her life is low (* Other cultures have their own contribution, but Christian culture is historically notable for this). Since World War II, the threat of personal violence from war of the typically westerner is low. In our modern age, intellectual prowess has replaced physical prowess as the primary determiner of social and financial power. These factors combine to make the typical western woman quite complacent about the marked differences in physical power between the sexes. And that’s a good thing, unless… Read more »
“But the risk today is that we cheer on women who want to “fight” men (not just talking physical fisticuffs here) yet are horrified when the man gets annoyed enough that he removes his social handcuffs and responds.” Yes, that’s the hypocrisy of feminism. In fact now we DO want women to physically fight men too, we want them to be Infantry…persons. The other side, not having our commitment to equality, won’t likely be fielding women in response. Then we’re going to turn around and tell our boys “don’t hit girls”? What will we answer when they ask “why not”,… Read more »
“One consequence of rejecting the protection of good men is that you are opening yourself up to the predations of bad men.”
Bad men, can even be junk “researchers” who fabricate junk research about rape. : -(
The junk research does not protect anyone, but does line the pockets of the author. : – (
http://reason.com/archives/2015/10/20/junk-science-and-campus-rape/
“But because of the superior strength and higher levels of aggressiveness in men — and I know I run the risk of heavy fines and internment in sensitivity camp for saying it — what we must have in order to protect women from men is . . . men.” Hmm, I’m going to quibble just a bit here. It is not really superior strength and men’s aggressiveness that protects women and girls, but rather the self worth and sense of value that men’s willingness to protect conveys to us. Fathers have a whole lot to do with how we perceive… Read more »
What you say is painfully true.
That is often the case but not always. There is no place for complacency about whether one could be a victim of crime.
Prodigal son version: One consequence of the son rejecting the protection of his good Father is that the son was opening himself up to the predations of riotous living. I fully acknowledge that this is not what the son thought he was doing. The son thought he was rejecting patriarchy, or some other icky thing, but when the son walked away from the protections of his father and brother, what it amounts to is a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of being a starving, squandering fool, albeit, an “independant” one. Galatians 6:7-9 (GNT) 7 Do… Read more »
“I have taught parents repeatedly that their job is not to get the kids
to conform to the standard, but rather to get them to love the standard.
If they don’t love the standard, then lower the standard and work from
there.”
This is really smart. The world has no standards. Sometimes simply letting kids know that Fathers are really important and that marriage is the best way to raise a family, is all it takes. Sometimes that concept is downright revolutionary.
Summary: Men are responsible for preventing rape. Wilson is just rehashing a common liberal ideal. Next up, he’s going to write about how underfunded NPR is.
Well, that’s been the expectation among civilised people for several millennia now. Why change a successful formula?
And how many of those women who criticise “rape culture” are in favour of open borders or even can be found holding up “Refugees Welcome” signs?
Immigration is the true rape culture.
The courtship rituals of the Muslim men invading feminized Europe vividly demonstrates the kindness of the O.T. laws regarding women. Imagining the Jews of O.T. time behaving as the men of Islam do shows the ugly raw material God chose to work with. The women of the time must have loved it when God began His work. We fallen men are ugly things. That binding of savage man to the law was not the end of it. In 1 Corinthians 11, St. Paul gives a lovely demonstration of how Christ gives both men and women himself in vs. 11. 2Now… Read more »
Yes, I’ve often read great kindness and protection in the old testament. Some of the rules for rape, slavery, wives, are often met with horror in the modern western world, but in the context of the times and in the face of the ugliness of human behavior, they are actually calls for fairness, for justice, for human rights.
Speaking of rape culture, have you heard about the group of men who are trying to have secret meetings to promote the legalization of rape?
Of course that’s the scare headline from the SJW side of things. The actual story is a little more complicated.
http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2016/02/roosh-v-witch-hunt.html
Please note that posting that link does not mean that I support any of these people or what they’re trying to do. I’m just pointing out how ridiculous our public dialog is these days.
I also heard the meetings were officialy canceled becsuse they were (ironicaly) concerned about their safety.
Some mentioned how the courtship model is difficult for those without intact families; well, regrettably I can speak to that, as well as to the issues when other men take the place of the father. OK, at least from the male perspective. :^) Due to the circumstances of my parents’ divorce, my dad lost a LOT of credibility with me–he was in my life (joint custody) and contributed a lot (not just money), but there were certain things that I just wouldn’t trust him on. (even though sometimes he was absolutely right through common grace) I’m very grateful, as is… Read more »
Maybe she refuses to let him walk her back to the car because she is afraid to be alone with him in case she is sexually taken advantage of by her date. Either way, women are in danger of being harmed by men.
If she is afraid to be alone with her date in a dark alley, then she has really, really chosen poorly. Her goal, before EVER going out with him must be to answer the following question: “Will I feel safe with him in a dark alley?” with a resounding “Yes!”
If she can’t answer that question with that level of affirmative confidence, then she has no business going anywhere with him, not even a wide freeway in broad daylight.
Does anything change when the female weighs 250 lbs and the male weighs only 185? What should be done in this case??
Then he should ask himself if he feels safe with her in a dark alley.
We are rapidly getting to the point where rape culture is any culture with men in it.
We are rapidly getting to the point where rape culture is any culture where most men are white.
FIFY
So following the logic of “men are the danger…men are the protection”, then we could just as rightly say that ISIS is the danger, then ISIS is what we need to protect us from ISIS……
Wouldn’t it be equally reasonable to say that if ISIS is the danger, then we need heavily armed, regulated, and decent military personnel to protect us from ISIS?
True, but Isis is not who you call to protect us from Isis
Tony, more classically stated, one can “fight fire with fire”.
One fire is out of control, the other fire used to fight it, is in control.
aka, “a controlled burn”.
In similar fashion, “iron sharpens iron”. Get the point? ; – )
yeah, but given certain circumstances and variables, that controlled burn could easily become just as dangerous as the out of control fire….
That’s true of absolutely everything, in every way, ever. Everything can have a bad side if abused. We never, ever use that as a stand-alone reason not to do something: “We can’t do this, because if we totally screw it up, then it will be bad.”
so, you agree that giving a simplistic answer to a complex problem like “men are the problem and men are the solution” that Doug gives is completely asinine and only useful to advance a problematic and unbiblical theology?
You could say that a simplistic analysis of a complex problem like “Doug’s answer is asinine and problematic and unbiblical” is asinine, problematic, and unbiblical. One can differ with Doug on some points and agree with him on others, as Jane does often.
One could say that, I guess…it is a free country. In this case I have pointed out briefly what i believe is problematic and unbiblical. That may be brief (seeing a blog comment section is not the best forum for a 3000 word essay) but not simplistic friend….
The issue is not one which can be dealt with in brief, and Doug has attempted, many times, to deal with it at the length it deserves. I do not agree with the way he’s said everything about rape and submission, but I think that your reduction of his carefully chosen words is, deliberately or not, wrong. As you say, it’s a free country – but I would hope that a discussion could get past simple repetition of reductionistic epithets. Otherwise, why keep commenting?
If you look at the past couple of posts on this subject by Doug (and taking into account what he has written previously about a women’s place in marriage and society), he has simply said the same thing in different ways. In my comments with others in this article, if you notice, it’s basically the same defence and objection being repeated (essentially good men need to protect women from bad men), thereby requiring me to state the same objection. If someone had a different objection or critique of what I have written, I would gladly address it. But that requires… Read more »
What I’ve been seeing you say is essentially just repeating Rachel Held Evan’s hearsay accusation that Doug believes that women who don’t accept a patriarchal culture deserve rape.
I have read a lot of Doug’s work, and his theology, beliefs on the place of women, etc., he does believe essentially that, yeah, its sad that a woman who doesn’t submit to “male protection” (which essentially is submitting to the man’s leadership in totality) is sad….but what do you expect? She’s rebellious…….
I think Doug would say that whether or not a woman wants the protection, it is the duty of men in society to continue to provide it, and that the failure to protect them, though logical, isn’t deserved or desirable.
He actually dosen’t…..but even if he did, Biblically, even the idea that failure to protect anyone in need (in this case a woman) is in no way logical or commanded, especially considering Jesus saved us while we were his enemies….
I’m getting a bit confused about some of your points. Do you believe Doug’s views on complementarian marriage are unscriptural? Do you believe there is nothing in scripture that suggests male leadership in the home as a good thing? Do you believe that the inherent protectiveness most good men feel towards women is wrong because it treats them as the weaker sex, thereby marginalizing them ? Do you actually believe, as you mentioned briefly in an earlier post, that the proclamation of the Gospel plus ensuring womeave complete equality with men would make rape disappear?
-For my beliefs on complementarianism, Doug goes farther with the belief than many reformed thinkers do (such as Tim Keller, other with the Gospel Coalition). Also, when you look at the verses that are used to support complementarian usually dismisses or ignore the fact that men need to submit (especially their own selfishness) out of love to their wives and that we are all to submit to one another-which coincides with God’s real original design for marriage (two becoming one flesh). If this is done, male leadership is unnecessary. “Do you believe that the inherent protectiveness most good men feel… Read more »
Why would greater equality reduce rape?
I don’t think I mentioned equality (though that is good, it’s has nothing to do with rape). I believe I mentioned treating women with dignity and not as second class citizens to men. If I wrote equality (which I don’t think so, but I am a human typing fast and could make a mistake) the idea I had in my head was dignity.
So do you believe that most men who commit rape do so because they fail to respect a woman’s dignity? As women have achieved milestones such as property rights, the vote, anti-discrimination laws, and so on, has the prevalence of rape decreased (as we should expect if rape is a result of women being treated as secondary to men).
There are various reasons for rape. Usually it is an issue of power and seeing the woman is solely an object for sexual desire.
So, if I understand you correctly, your issue is only with unilateral submission. As long as husbands and wives submit to each other equally, submission is a good thing. Do you believe that Sts. Peter and Paul and the church fathers were mistaken in saying “Wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord”?
in those verses, the husband is commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church, which required submission, and in Ephesians just before the commands about the husbands and wives, we are told to submit to one another. Add to that God’s original design for marriage (the two become one flesh) it makes the “husbands the boss and the woman submit unnecessary. I would also say many who would consider themselves complementarians actually act as I stated above.
I agree with your last point. Some people talk as if questions of dominance and submission are arising twenty times a day, as the husband barks orders and the wife cowers in the corner. I have seen marriages like that but the main cause was usually substance abuse or criminality, not questionable theology. People in a healthy marriage want to please each other, consult each other, advise each other, and so on. I think that talk of Biblical submission can cause people to envision something far from the reality. I meant to reply to an earlier post where you said… Read more »
in reading much of what Doug wrote, my impression a lot,of times is that he talks out of both sides of his mouth. His views of complantarianism, at its root (and his generalization of feminism) is the issue. Sure, he supported McCain because of plain (but in all honesty, was he really going to support Obama?), but was that support because of politics or because he believed she should be the leader? Yes, he encourages women getting higher education (preferably the college he is dean of), but if your place is to submit to your husbands leadership, then the same… Read more »
Tony, comicly enough, you sound like:
“A man with a plan!” i. e. a man with a solution to an issue re: men.
I notice that you did not touch the “iron shrapens iron”, Biblical / theological, non-problematic concept.
Any response? I’d even accept a simplistic answer! ; – )
Sharpening is, after all, a frictional process, not unlike certain blogs at times.
Having “a plan” as you describe it has absolutely nothing to do with my gender, but that I have thought through asinine logic and having the Bible shape my worldview instead of acquiring a world view then vainly trying to find bible verses to support what I already decided was right (like Doug here). I did not respond to the iron sharpens iron comment because it has no bearing on your comment nor does it give any insight or support to doughs premise.
Tony, that makes no sense at all. Isis is a particular entity made up of particular people, which espouses a specific ideology. “Men” are not such a coherent class, and that is precisely Doug’s point: you need good men to fight back against bad men. Now, granted, some “good” men can do evil things, and some “bad” men repent of them. What of it? That doesn’t change the basic principle. A better analogy would be this: eating junk food is the problem. The solution is to eat nutritious food. Granted, sometimes “nutritious” food isn’t, and sometimes other people need food… Read more »
Based on the biblical teaching that all men are sinful and capable of incredible evil, and based that many have used good to justify their own evil, the original comment is pretty spot on. For your analogy, people may lie that bad food is good food, but good food never becomes bad food or vice versa.
Of course it does: it rots! And cassava is poisonous, unless you prepare it properly. Something that is healthful for a person at one point in life may not be so later on, and vice-versa. Small children benefit from dairy fat for brain development (or so many say), but you wouldn’t give whole milk to an obese teenager, just because he might have needed it when he was three. But that’s so much quibbling about an analogy. The point still stands: just how are you going to fight evil men, if “all men” (including women, mind you!) are so unremediably… Read more »
“Of course it does: it rots! And cassava is poisonous, unless you prepare it properly. Something that is healthful for a person at one point in life may not be so later on, and vice-versa. Small children benefit from dairy fat for brain development (or so many say), but you wouldn’t give whole milk to an obese teenager, just because he might have needed it when he was three.” -I have a funny feeling that when shared the original comment about food as an analogy to “good men and bad men”, I don’t think you had cassava, rotting food, etc.… Read more »
Well, OK. sharpen yourself, although, as a friendly suggestion, your thoughts on “asinine logic” might not be quite as “thought through” as you think they are. ‘Could be a vanity issue, not likely a humility issue. : – ( Also, if the The Word and The Spirit shape your world view, you might want to repeat The Word once in a while! ; – ) Proverbs 27 17 As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. 18 The one who guards a fig tree will eat its fruit, and whoever protects their master will be honored. 19 As water… Read more »
You read a bit too much into things (and don’t fully understand the Freudian slip….)
As for sharing the Word as I critique some of Doug’s comments in this article common sense itself would itself debunk much of what he wrote. And if you want scriptural backing for why I believe Doug’s critique is wrong, just go up to my response to Philips comment…plenty there.
Proverbs 26:16 16 The slacker sees himself as wiser by far than seven men who can converse intelligently. Tony, the Simpsons expression “D’oh!” is commonly understood as an expression of a goof. (even a spelling error!) You are wrong, I do fully understand the Freudian slip, you, by your own words, do not understand double and triple entendres’. (think about it!) As for The Word, Proverbs 26:16 sounds like you, whether you like it or not. Also, when folks take your position to it’s linear conclusion, your repetitive response is, “You read a bit too much into things”, when you… Read more »
so it’s clear that you proof-text, that you throw accusations at people when you know nothing about them, and that a misspelling in a comment section proves a deep seeded hidden agenda. As a rule, I don’t take biblical counsel from random people on the internet. My pastor and leaders at my church, fellow church members and friends who know me provide great counsel that helps me grow as a follower of Jesus……many people on the internet (on such venues as this website) either are just sharing their beliefs (which is valid even if I don’t agree) or are just… Read more »
“You read a bit too much into things (and don’t fully understand the Freudian slip….)”
Uhoh! Now I’m “proof-texting” you! ; -)
Tone-miester, there is only one Church, and Jesus is Lord over it.
What you and I call churches are only small groups.
But rather than just accusing me of “proof-texting”, why can’t you explain how I am misusing The Word?
If you were to do that, it would almost be like “iron sharpens iron”!
; – )
using Proverbs 27:17 when it doesn’t apply, using Proverbs 26:16 when you have no idea if I am a slacker and only use it as an attack……..there’s the proof-texting
Proverbs 27:17 almost always applies! Even now.
“As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.”
Jilly, Dunsworth, Jon S., Timothy, Bethyada, Philip and “A” dad is getting pretty close to the Proverbial “7” so Proverbs 26:16 may apply far more than you think. (or add!) ; – )
But please, call it “proof-texting”, in an ever so civil fashion.
Jilly would fit this…she is asking for clarifications, asking questions to fully understand what I believed and understand my comments more fully. Some of you other guys are not really concerned about my spiritual growth, but bashing any belief that does not agree with yours. That’s not what is implied in scripture as “iron sharpens iron”, and because you are using the verse out of biblical context, well, that is the definition of proof-texting.
Ecclesiastes 12:11-12 Easy-to-Read Version 11 Words from the wise are like sharp goads. When these sayings are written down and saved, they can be used to guide people, just as a shepherd uses a sharp stick to make his sheep go the right way. 12 So, son, study these sayings, but be careful about other teachings. People are always writing books, and too much study will make you very tired. 2 Timothy 3:16 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped… Read more »
Ecclesiastes 12:11-12- I’m confused, are you stating that you are the one that’s wise? That’s pretty presumptions. In these posts I have attempted to prove certain things, and for sure I have opinions. Wisdom is not accomplished by tossing out Bible verses. 2 Timothy 3:16-I believe that whole heatedly…….however, a persons interpretation or use of God’s authoritative Word is not the Word, therefore we need to question it. Isaiah 55:10-12-you are missing the rest of the chapter, which sheds a different light on those verses you quoted. “You know Tony, I believe in what the Word says about its’ self,… Read more »
Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. “Wisdom is not accomplished by tossing out Bible verses.” Tony. So Tony declaratives trump the Word? Wow. “however, a persons interpretation or use of God’s authoritative Word is not the Word, therefore we need to question it.” Tony So what is the answer? “Wisdom is not accomplished by tossing out Bible verses.”? “you are missing the rest of the chapter, which sheds a different light on those verses you quoted.” Tony So verses 12 and 13 “the rest of the chapter”, are the only result… Read more »
“Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction.” -Where have I stated a moralistic fallacy? Please elaborate…. “”Wisdom is not accomplished by tossing out Bible verses.” Tony. So Tony declaratives trump the Word? Wow.” -never said that. Simply sharing a Bible verse that supports a conclusion that one wants to have does not make one wise, it does not mean those verse quoted are taken in the context of the surrounding verses or the rest of God’s word, nor does it mean the one trowing those verses around actually prove that one values… Read more »
Tone-loc, your questions are better answered in principle, rather than point by point. While you keep denying the fallacies you commit, in principle many of them fit into this one. “Fallacy of many questions” (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda. I do not presume to be your teacher, that’s why I repeat and emphasize the Word, rather… Read more »
“Tone-loc, your questions are better answered in principle, rather than point by point.” -First off. you can call me Tony. I am not an aging 90’s rapper. “While you keep denying the fallacies you commit, in principle many of them fit into this one.” -Let’s be honest, you (and others) accuse me of different Fallacies, yet the examples you cite as a fallacy is questionable at best. “”Fallacy of many questions” (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.… Read more »
…….”Thus saith the Tony.”
Well.. so much for the sense of humor.
“…..eeh…..” Did you throw a belt?
Seriously, come back when you are up for it, I bet you even learned something by accident. This discourse was enlightening for me.
Thanks? ; – )
“-where, pre tell, did I fall into the fallicy of the complex queston? Wait, did I just commit the Fallacy of the Complex question by asking that question?”
Whoops! Missed this one! That was pretty good! ; – )
“Thus satin the tony” would be completely be appropriate….if I ever claimed to be God, but I never have.
I learned a lot too….nothing that would change my belief that Doug’s article was anything but simplistic, or that an Internet comment section is not the place where you will receive discipleship or tips for spiritual growth…..but quite a bit… ;-)
It’s not a simplistic answer, it’s an answer that uses simple language to broadly frame a fairly complex idea with complex applications. I think by “simplistic” you mean, “I don’t like it.”
There is no complex ideas or complex applications with what Doug said……pretty straight forward friend…..
You choose to view it that way. Yet if you were familiar with the things Doug has written about these ideas, you’d discover that his view is anything but simplistic.
So in your mind, you impute a simplistic meaning to the words, but if you understood what he meant by them, you wouldn’t.
No, I have read much do what Doug has written, especially on issues of gender roles marriage and feminism…….he speaks out of both side of his mouth, but simplistic nails it……
I re-read what you wrote….what you said is reasonable, but that’s not the analogy Doug gave, because the military is a different entity than Isis, while Doug states that men are the biggest danger to women and the solution is for women to submit to men so they can be protected.
No, the dangerous men and the protecting men are not the same men.
Considering all men are sinful, that that good man could very easily (due to our sinful nature) become the bad man, and that seemingly “good men” have done horrible things to women, the comparison is apt. Maybe Doug can start with not giving a simplistic solution to a complex problem or interpret everything through a reformed mindset..
Oh goodness, what pitiful muddying. Sanctification happens with predictable real-world effects. Rebellion happens with equally predictable real-world effects.
So by that logic (depending on what you define as “Sanctification” and “Rebellion”, which may or may not be a rendering faithful to scripture) those who are “sanctified” or being “sancified” can never revert? Are you stating that good people can’t do horrendous things?
I am arguing the Law of Large Numbers which states that in any group we should expect a reversion to the mean. Yes outliers exist; we name them because they are uncommon things, worthy of noting as…wait for it…far from normal. You muddy the waters, either stupidly or on purpose, by insisting that actions 3 S.D. from the mean are to be expected. They are not. That’s my argument in common sense terms, let’s turn to the know work and attributes of the Holy Spirit. The Christian men of Christchurch Moscow will not mass rape women; the muslim hordes of… Read more »
-“You muddy the waters, either stupidly or on purpose, by insisting that actions 3 S.D. from the mean are to be expected. They are not.” -First, i not only include rape with men doing terrible things, but all sorts of abuse, men practically treating women as second class citizens, etc. Second, to claim some of these things are outliers (especially in regards to Doug’s church) is basically whitewashing. There are many churches and christians that have swept abuse against women and children under the rug and have justified sins against women. -“That’s my argument in common sense terms, let’s turn… Read more »
Stupidly it is then.
God Bless and thank you for the civil, thoughtful comment and the reasoned, detailed critique of what I wrote……….
Your comment is not worth a critique. Unlike you, I am not being sarcastic. God bless you too.
I’ll prayerfully consider your rebuke…….. :)
Your good-faith reply has changed my mind. Let’s start with your statements: Second, to claim some of these things are outliers (especially in regards to Doug’s church) is basically whitewashing. and those who are “sanctified” or being “sancified” can never revert? Are you stating that good people can’t do horrendous things? and Considering all men are sinful, that that good man could very easily (due to our sinful nature) become the bad man, and that seemingly “good men” have done horrible things to women, the comparison is apt. Here is the muddying and your error. For your claims to hold,… Read more »
Thanks for schooling me, but there is a couple things you missed. The verses in Galations you mentioned don’t in any way contradict or invalidate what I have oft-stated, but enforce. Paul, talking to the Galations, is talking to believers-believers who at some level admired to Christian teaching. Paul said that a believer could “live in the flesh” or “live in the spirit”. When you look at the fruit of living in the spirit, it’s at its core heart attitudes. Essentially a man who “leads his home” could quite easily become that man (depending on variables such as not keeping… Read more »
, is talking to believers-believers who at some level admired to Christian teaching. I assume you meant “aspire to”… Paul said that a believer could “live in the flesh” or “live in the spirit”. This is new to me. Source? St. Jame’s discourse on works directly contradicts your statement. He insists that the evidence of the Spirit is works and that if the works are not there, then the Spirit has not been allowed to do His job. (paraphrasing, roughly) . In “theologian” terms, somebody famous (Spurgeon ? ) remarked that Christianity w/o sanctification is no Christianity at all. When… Read more »
I means adhere…I am on an iPad…as for a believer could live in the flesh or spirit, well, the countless examples in the bible, such as Abraham, David, Solomon, etc, where at times they lived in the flesh and at times in the spirit, Romans 7:7-25, where Paul describes how he lived in that constant struggle..are a couple of places…
where Paul describes how he lived in that constant struggle
Ok, better.
In that ‘constant struggle’ what is Christian growth? Is the struggle always with the same things? or is there real change that occurs?
Stated differently does the flesh grow weaker, stronger or remain the same over time? Similarly, does the Spirit fill us less, more, or the same as we mature?
For sure, the idea scenario is the more that we mature, the more sin is “distilled” in the life of the believer. However, because we still have the “body of sin”as Paul described it, and our hearts are still idol factories, we still can throw our allegiance to other idols, whether bad (money, sex without commitment) or good idols (political idealology, piety, right doctrinal belief, etc). The spirit is vital for Christian growth. However, we can ignore or reject the spirits leading as well.
For sure, the idea scenario is the more that we mature, the more sin is “distilled” in the life of the believer. Distilled? dis·till dəˈstil/ verb 1. purify (a liquid) by vaporizing it, then condensing it by cooling the vapor, and collecting the resulting liquid. 2. extract the essential meaning or most important aspects of. we still can throw our allegiance to other idols, whether bad (money, sex without commitment) or good idols (political idealology, piety, right doctrinal belief, etc). Good idols? The spirit is vital for Christian growth. However, we can ignore or reject the spirits leading as well.… Read more »
-for the first highlighted area, the concept is Biblically true. For sure, the Bible does not use the word “distilled”, but the concept is 100% Biblical. Tim Keller (a reformed Presbyterian preacher in NYC) discusses this concept quite well. -For your second highlighted comment, the idea (as I have expressed) a good, non evil thing can become an idol. If anything takes the place of God, then it’s an idol. The initial thing might not be “bad” but it’s still an idol and it still displeases and angers God. Again, Tim Keller explains this well. -for your third highlighted comment,… Read more »
Ok, thanks, we can proceed.
Over time should we expect less or more sin in a Christian’s life? Why?
“Over time should we expect less or more sin in a Christian’s life? Why?” -That is an impossible question to answer simply because there are too many variables to consider-the teaching at their church that may justify sin, their own spiritual disciplines, heart attitude at the time (are they not dealing with their pride or selfishness), is their times with other believers just social or are they building deep relationship, major tragedies that might cause someone to question the goodness of God, people sinning against us, etc…… Should it happen? Yeah. Should we expect it to happen? Well, just like… Read more »
That’s where we differ. This difference explains why we disagree on the downstream matter. My understanding is that as the work of the Holy Spirit proceeds in a person they are transformed. This work has a direction–towards Holiness–and proceeds as the normal consequence of being in Christ. Yes, outliers happen, but taken as a whole, Christians change from practicing the works of the flesh into exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit. If we do not see this change over time, then we are right to worry that the professing Christian is no Christian at all. Perhaps an elder will jump… Read more »
I can live with differences. I would agree that the Holy Spirit always pushes towards holiness, but we need to take into account human free will. I believe what I believe because of what I see in scripture (many OT saints sinning, even horribly, after they were “redeemed”, the NT where Paul is continually pointing out sin in the churches, Jesus words to the church in EPhesis where they were doing everything right, but were called out for leaving their first love, Paul’s own description of his faith journey in Romans 7, etc). If you want to continue, fine, I’m… Read more »
Even after the grievous sins in the OT, we see a pattern. (Elders, please correct me if this is wrong/incomplete). I have David in mind here… Temptation. Sin. Pride. God confronts. Judgement Brokenness Repentence Restoration Greater holiness. Or, in simpler terms, death and rebirth. Notice the overall progression. At the end of it, holiness is greater than at the beginning. I believe what I believe because of what I see in scripture Try opening your eyes to the gifts that surround you; you are soaking in them. It is my contention (and this is backed by God’s promise that He… Read more »
“Or, in simpler terms, death and rebirth. Notice the overall progression. At the end of it, holiness is greater than at the beginning.” – In it’s basics, i have no issue with your comment from the begging of your post to the place I quoted (Greater Holiness may not happen depending on what you define as “greater holiness”). However, you are ignoring the fact that 1) This cycle you mention is something a believer goes through their entire lives. It is safe to say that any christian today has sinned and that no matter how long they have been a… Read more »
It is my opinion that your view is nonsensical. You are trying to convince me that the work of the Holy Spirit is ineffectual, that sin in a believer’s life has the same power at year 50 as it did at day 0. That while there is Christian growth, sanctification and edification, it makes no difference when compared to the world because at any time a Christian can sin. For your position to be true, Christendom would not exist. There would be no elders because at any time a Christian can commit grievous sin. We should expect the christian men… Read more »
“It is my opinion that your view is nonsensical. You are trying to convince me that the work of the Holy Spirit is ineffectual, that sin in a believer’s life has the same power at year 50 as it did at day 0. ” -Nothing that I have stated would automatically lead to the conclusion that the work of the Holy Spirit is Ineffectual, or that sin in the Believer’s life automatically has the same power from day one to year 50. The Holy Spirit can change the vilest of sinners heart, as it can make that new believer’s life… Read more »
not as “those evil doers are causing problems”, but “we all are”. No, we are not. That’s the point. We stop sinning. We stop causing problems. We become good. The one Major difference it makes is that, when we fully understand how corrupt we are with sin Our grasp of the enormity of sin and the complete dependence we have on Him does increase with our walk. He shows us our sin, and He, over time shows us hidden sins–things we never knew we had in us. We also recognize that the lost do not recognize that they are lost.… Read more »
“not as “those evil doers are causing problems”, but “we all are”. No, we are not. That’s the point. We stop sinning. We stop causing problems. We become good.” -First off, good luck with the whole”stop sinning” thing. No human can just “stop sinning” this side of eternity.Sin can be distilled this side of eternity, but never eradicated. That is why Jesus needed to come and become the propitiation for our sin. If all we needed to do was just “stop sinning”, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do the very things “good Christians” do without Jesus. So essentially you are saying… Read more »
In this paragraph, you refuted nothing of what I said, did not explain for the countless examples of Christians who have at some point been faithful believers committing sin, even some horrendous acts, nor have you shown how a sin like pride, legalism characterizing others as enemies and treating certain groups as less than human are not grave sins. Nor have you shown that this condition is consistent and unchanging. Here, you repeat the error of arguing the exception as the norm, the outlier for the mean. Furthermore, you employ this trope in the service of subjugating Christianity to the… Read more »
“Here, you repeat the error of arguing the exception as the norm, the outlier for the mean.” -I can’t be committing the error of arguing the exception to the norm when the “exception” as you describe it happens much more frequently than you care to admit. “Furthermore, you employ this trope in the service of subjugating Christianity to the perverted, sick , twisted, evil, depraved mores of the world.” -I don’t want this any more than I want someone to have cancer. But to deal with cancer we have to diagnose properly and honestly. If we tell a person with… Read more »
“You can be a believer of 50 years, out of pride and selfishness start ignoring His leading and be no better than before you started. That is a choice we make every single day as a believer. Ignoring this is simply ignoring free will.”
How reversable is 50 years worth of work and at what rate? Would Job have abandoned God after having his heath and family restored?
Our growth as a believer nor our choice to reject or accept the leading of the Spirit isn’t dependant of circumstances…it’s a heart issue…
Yes but 50 years of accepting the Spirits leading would have an effect on your heart would it not?
Yeah,but sin is still a powerful agent in the life of an individual, and it’s incredibly deceptive. So for that proverbial believer of 50 years who has been accepting the Spirits leading might not, though in the realm of possibility, become a murderer, rapist. pedophile, etc. But he could easily become moralistic, legalistic, chastising others for failing to meet up to his standard, etc. For sure I would rather have that guy as my neighbor than a murderer, but that sin still has devastating effects not just on himself but others around him, even if the effects are not as… Read more »
Yes, he’s not going to become immume to sin and or temptation, but like David and Bathsheba he will be more likely to repent when he does sin.
And as I have often stated, increasing the likelyhood that one will repent does not mean they will repent………..
Well it would be as foolish to asume someone else will repent as it would be to say ‘I will just sin now and repent later’.
So essentially we are at the point that you agree with me but don’t want to admit it….
I think we do agree with each other.
Then why argue for the past day?
I wasn’t sure if we agreed at the outset.
Fair enough….
“Ignoring this is simply ignoring free will.”
Positing what you’re positing is saying that the Holy Spirit does not have the power to keep the promises God makes. If after fifty years we’re just as likely to be nowhere as somewhere in our mortification of sin, sanctification is a failure and God’s promises are more like verbalized wishes.
They are not good people while they are doing horrendous things. We are all capable of good and evil deeds. I don’t think there is such a thing as a fundamentally good person who commits crimes of violence against others. That person may repent and give up his criminal conduct. A person who has generally done good deeds may decide to go over to the dark side. And while he is over there, he is no longer a good person. I am using “good” in the normal sense, not the theological sense.
and that has basically been my oft-repeated point in regards to Doug’s article……..
I am not sure I get that. Are you saying that because a good person could theoretically decide to do evil, that person is useless as a protector of the weak? On that reasoning, I should be afraid to call the police to repel an intruder in case the police officer is even more wicked than the criminal. He might be. But by every yardstick of common sense, I am better off trusting the cop.
That’s not at all what I am saying (and BTW, I do thank you for the civility……some on this website don’t really care about civility). At root what sin is (based on Gen 3:6) is mankind’s desire to be their own savior and Lords. This manifests in evil acts, people being moral an Pious as a way earn their salvation and compare themselves to others, and even to use religious and biblical teaching and twisting it to justify their own sin (think of people using the Bible to justify slavery and segregation in the south). Doug simplistically said (and confirmed… Read more »
“I have thought through asinine logic and having the Bible shape my worldview instead of acquiring a world view then vainly trying to find bible verses to support what I already decided was right (like Doug here).”
Wow! you think calling Wilson’s logic “asinine” is civil, Tony?
Anyway, you can’t go wrong with Jilly. She is always the model of civility, coupled with a great sense of humor!
It is totally right to attack ideas, not people. DOug i assume is a nice guy, like you are. Does not mean the ideas are not wrong illogical or asinine……..
Good night Tony. Church on Sunday!
Thank you, A Dad, how kind of you.
Luke 6:45-46 45 Good people have good things saved in their hearts. That’s why they say good things. But those who are evil have hearts full of evil, and that’s why they say things that are evil. What people say with their mouths comes from what fills their hearts. 46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ but you don’t do what I say? Jilly, you know within yourself, that you are not perfect. This might be why you have such a good grip on what comes out of your “mouth”, at least here on this blog. Not to mention… Read more »
Even the radical feminists teach this, though their “good men” are the police state rather than husbands and fathers.
I have found with doug’s writings, that, intentionally or unintentionally, he skews what feminism is…
Considering that feminism boils down to hysterical screams of primal rage and self pity, how exactly does he skew it?
Well, considering that there is a massive spectrum in the umbrella of the “feminist” movement, to boil it down to “hysterical screams of primal rage” might be skewing the issue…..
The first part of what you have said is true. But your comparison is not correct in that you used the example of ISIS (which will be read as evil army/ militia). Doug contrasts brothers and husbands and fathers who care about their women folk with other men who do not care about those same women. As there is not an obvious ISIS faction who cares about women (that we know of), your comparison is not apt, whereas Jill’s modification was.
So from what I understand, you agree with the fact that good men can become bad men quite easily, right? My comparison with isis was not in regards to protection of women, but to point out the flawed logic of Doug. The comparison I made with Isis was “Isis is the threat to america and the answer to protecting us from Isis is Isis” . But you have a point, so I will amend the comment-“Saying men is the biggest threat to women and the solution is men is like saying Isis is the biggest threat to america and the… Read more »
That men can become evil is not that they are evil. So your analogy should say that if ISIS is the threat then an army is the solution. Why would you compare good men protecting their women to Al Qaeda?
Doesn’t Romans say that all men are unrighteousness? Isn’t one of the pillars of Christian theology the sinfulness of man? Don’t we have countless examples of pastors and “good Christian men” doing horrendous things to women, either by doing something that is clearly not biblical or by twisting scripture to justify their own behaviour and beliefs (such as the case of Doug here, if a woman forsakes a mans protection, they should expect to get raped). As for your last comment, I compare “good men” to al quid a because the bible compares them in the same way.
Where does it compare them, Tony? Give me chapter and verse. I’ll raise you Luke 1:6 (on Eizabeth and Zechariah–so both men and women!), “Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.” Or Genesis 15:6, “Then Abraham believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” I don’t know what Bible you’re reading, but mine nowhere says that anyone is ‘unrighteousness’ indelibly, rather, that men without God are unrighteous. What would you have us do, Tony? Sin the more that grace may abound? Are we not even… Read more »
Well, I can see that you have read quite a bit into what I wrote. You seem to believe that I said that when I said that all are unrighteous and sinful that I could only possibly mean that every human being in the entire world are continually raping, pillaging, etc. Not only did I never say that or imply that, it shows you don’t understand the biblical concept of sin (or choose to ignore it). The Bible continually shows the unrepentant believer doing good things and the child of God committing sin. We even see that today. Some atheists… Read more »
Tony, that is exactly what you said. You declared that all men are “unrighteousness.” How else am I supposed to interpret that than to believe that all human beings are indelibly wicked to the core of their beings? Words have meaning, and that is what you said. And you have repeatedly declared that “good men” as a class are likened by the Bible to Al Qaeda. Now, maybe you don’t mean what your words actually say, but it makes coherent conversation difficult. Besides, the claim is simply absurd. Allowing mistreatment of a slave girl is not the same thing as… Read more »
“Tony, that is exactly what you said. You declared that all men are “unrighteousness.” ” -and as I said, that is what the Bible means when it talks about unrightiousness……. ” And you have repeatedly declared that “good men” as a class are likened by the Bible to Al Qaeda. Now, maybe you don’t mean what your words actually say, but it makes coherent conversation difficult. Besides, the claim is simply absurd. Allowing mistreatment of a slave girl is not the same thing as murdering thousands of people in the name of a false religion, or trying to oppress the… Read more »
Yes, God called them out, but they repented. To say that the Bible compares them to Al Qaeda, without further qualification, is a serious distortion of the text: it is to pretend that repentance and reformation of life are not really possible, or not really meaningful (exactly what it means to say that people ‘are unrighteous’ without any qualification, when St Paul in fact calls Christians ‘the righteousness of God’). And you did say that “good men” are like ISIS–you said, in fact, that the Bible said that they were like Al Qaeda, who aren’t all that much different from… Read more »
* I mean ‘do not distinguish’, of course, in the first line of the first paragraph.
“Yes, God called them out, but they repented. To say that the Bible compares them to Al Qaeda, without further qualification, is a serious distortion of the text: it is to pretend that repentance and reformation of life are not really possible, or not really meaningful (exactly what it means to say that people ‘are unrighteous’ without any qualification, when St Paul in fact calls Christians ‘the righteousness of God’)” -you are forgetting the fact that 1) Repentance is a life long endeavor for the believer simply because we can not live perfectly a life pleasing to God this side… Read more »
Good catch on ‘misspelled’, but an appeal to Canadian ‘proper grammar’ does not explain repeatedly misspelling ‘Al Qaeda’, for one, or not knowing the difference between ‘to’ and ‘two’…. It’s not such a big deal, of course, except that it does tend to make your writing unclear. On the main point, however, you are simply affirming what I have objected to: the idea that all sins are equal, and thus that one sinner is completely interchangeable, in practical social and political terms, with another. This is nonsense. You would not choose Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin as president over FDR,… Read more »
*Canadians, of course. There’s more than one of you up there….
Though it’s tough to find them, with all the igloo’s, 11 months of winter and everyone wearing hockey equipment……..
What I miss: Maple syrup in the snow. Northern lights. Nanaimo bars. Justin Trudeau. Tim Hortons. Free medical care. BUT DEFINITELY NOT POUTINE.
You miss Justin Trudeau? Why, was he a really good bartender or something? Told a good joke? Knew how to adjust the TV antenna so it stayed? Or what?
Poutine is becoming a hipster thing in American bistros these days. I have no interest in trying it — I might like the taste but I it just screams “inverted calorie-gratification relationship.”
Well, he is related through marriage to a relative of mine, so I have a family duty to like him. And I adored his father who was prime minister through my teens and twenties. And he is exceptionally good looking especially when he is being rugged as opposed to soppy. I have heard he was a very popular teacher (which sometimes overlaps with being a very good teacher, but sometimes doesn’t). A friend of his was asked if he was intelligent. She paused and said, Well, he has emotional intelligence. If someone said that about me, they would be my… Read more »
chips and gravy with some cheese? I’d try that.
It isn’t real cheese but rather cheese curds. Imagine cottage cheese with gravy instead of whey. I like chips and parmesan, chips and garlic, chips and vinegar, chips and chips, and even chips and Spam, but I draw the line at chips with curds.
chips with cottage cheese? Hmmm, would still try it. Mind you, I’d try chocolate covered locusts!
Poutine is amazing!!!!!!!!!! You should try it!
Give him a break on the Al Qaeda thing — it’s a transliteration from a language that doesn’t transliterate 1:1, not subject to hard and fast rules, and that variant is probably used by some “authorized” source somewhere. I remember right after 9/11 we were all writing Al Qaida, and then someone decided that wasn’t right.
“Good catch on ‘misspelled’, but an appeal to Canadian ‘proper grammar’ does not explain repeatedly misspelling ‘Al Qaeda’, for one, or not knowing the difference between ‘to’ and ‘two’…. It’s not such a big deal, of course, except that it does tend to make your writing unclear.” -I do use an Ipad often when I comment on these posts. I catch most of the auto correct mistakes, but a few do slip. Any of the mistakes you mentioned really don’t hinder clarity. The average person doesn’t have any trouble understanding a sentence if someone mistakenly put’s to or too instead… Read more »
I guessed you were Canadian from the way you spelled defense with a “c” Me too. Do you live in the east, the west, or the middle?
East…in Quebec. You?
Vancouver but I have lived in Los Angeles for 30 years.
That mankind is sinful does not mean every action of a particular man is evil. Even Jesus said that sinful men can give good things to their children. Daniel was righteous, as was Job. I disagree with how you are reading Romans here.
But even if your overall interpretation is correct it is not relevant to Doug’s comment, his comment assumes that some men want to protect their womenfolk from other men who would abuse them.
One can certainly disagree with Doug here. Though it seems that Evans and others have misread him.
“That mankind is sinful does not mean every action of a particular man is evil. Even Jesus said that sinful men can give good things to their children. Daniel was righteous, as was Job. I disagree with how you are reading Romans here.” -and I never said that per se. Biblically, based on Genesis 3:6, the root of sin is the desire to be our own savior and Lord. I have said many times in these posts that even an Athiest can be more moral than a believer. That root of sin can make a person do horrible things, be… Read more »
Only if someone, somewhere, had asserted that men need to be the protection *because* men are the danger, or that there was some kind of general rule that the danger also has to be the protector.
which is essentially what Doug is saying……
Is a good man doing his job and protecting women and children by marrying a known pedophile and asking for the blessing of many children?
Ephesians 4:22-24
22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Is a good God doing His job mucking around with us sinners? Even you? (Let’s hope so!)
Just “curious”! ; – )
We are all sinners and fall short. So why even bother with having a father approve or not approve of a man for his daughter? Rapists. Pedophiles. Murderers. Prisoners. They repent. Doug or you glad to hand off your daughter to one of them? Isn’t there a reason for discernment that women and men should use?
Jeremiah 17:9, The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
10 “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”
Jdh, you might start with discerning between judgement and discernment! At least in my discernment! ; – ) God forgives sin that we find odious! Even yours and mine. As for paternal approval of a marriage, parents never stop loving their children, even after they are on their own. Everyone wants forgiveness and blessing. Even you!
While courtship culture has been mostly positive, they’ve turned Numbers 30 into significantly more than it is. It states that a woman’s vow stands unless her head objects in the day he hears it. It doesn’t say she has to ask her father before she can take a vow, though it might be a smart thing to do. That is why we have the custom of asking the father before marriage, because traditionally and biblically he can nullify it if he objects – which would be awkward and embarrassing. Paternal “non-objection” to a vow is what the Bible teaches. That… Read more »
“Sons leave, and daughters are given, and this requires us not to be too rigid in our methods.” One of the difficulties for a courtship dad who ships his daughter off to college or elsewhere, is that a man who is interested in an unaccompanied woman has to approach her first in order to find out what her family’s practice even is. “Thou shalt ask her father before showing any interest” doesn’t work for the daughter’s away game, unless there is enough trust and flexibility that she is able to field inquiries and direct the viable ones to her dad… Read more »
The vast majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows – often the “nice guy” who offered to walk you back to your car. And sometimes even those “protective” fathers. Not to mention all the uncles, brothers, guys from church, etc. Very few rapes are committed by strangers jumping out from the bushes.
Answer this oh wise man who knows everything good for women… What about a woman who has no brothers and who’s father died when she was 3 years old? What about a woman who’s father and brother are in prison for armed robbery? What about a woman WHO WAS RAPED by her own father and/or brother(s). Hmmm? Who is supposed to protect THOSE women? Statistically a woman is more likely to be assaulted by a family member than by a stranger.
Oh man, reading sh*t like this is why I left the faith. Jesus thinks I should properly be raped because I walked to my car on my own… sheesh. Thankfully Christianity is a dying religion.
This article is as ill,as the average Christian woman. The time for men to be protector,provider and human shield,for women is over. I found a convenient solution,though. A household and family of one,will keep me from being saddled with a hypocritical,entitled,greedy, supposedly-Christian woman and Her children. The divorce rate of couples who have a Female Breadwinner,are twice the already 50%+ divorce rates (total of 75%),for a everyone else. 70%+ of all divorces are initiated by the wife! I left the church over a decade ago. Guess why…… “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives and especially for their own… Read more »